I'll take the bait on the question you posed. Feeling philosophical today.
I think the ethics of a post are more a function of the type of information in the post than whether it is either negative or positive or the poster is short or long, as you have framed the question. I don't think the information being negative or positive is relevant to ethics and the position of the poster--short or long--is relevant only for certain content.
If the information is factual in nature and referenced as to source, then it is not only ethical, it is the picture of good SI citizenship, regardless of whether the information is positive or negative and regardless of the position in the security of the poster reporting the fact. Quality information, which informs the decision-making of investors, is not dependent of the position of the poster or whether the news is good or bad.
I think the same thing applies if the poster states an opinion and backs it up with a rationale. For example, "I have no confidence in this management. At the last conference call they promised that product x would be on the market by the end of the following quarter and it isn't out yet. The same thing happened last year with product y." The reader can conclude for himself whether or not the rationale justifies the opinion and, having read the opinion and the basis, his decision-making is informed.
It always saddens me when a board jumps on a poster for posting negative information, accusing him of being short or even disreputable, because it discourages posters who are in possession of important, albeit negative, information.
I think the ethical issue arises when posts are unsubstantiated "facts" or opinions; or emotional outbursts. In those cases, I would consider it unethical to hide if one were short or long due to the potential for bias and even misleading. For this type of "information" the motives of the poster become important.
I use the word "hide" intentionally. The shorts may consider this unfair, but I think the onus for disclosure is on them and not the longs. My rationale is as follows. It would be a nuisance for everyone to have to identify a position all the time like the talking heads do on TV; it's disruptive to the dialog. Since it is generally assumed that the default for posters on *company-specific threads* is long (at least I think that's what others assume), the onus is on the shorts to identify themselves when they post other than facts and supported opinions. If the default for a poster is that he is long, then the failure to articulate his long status would not constitute "hiding" his position because long is a given.
Don't think it's relevant to the ethical issue whether or not the poster's "sentiment" turns out to be right or wrong--the ethical issue is about disclosure.
Karen
p.s. I prefer to think that the default for posters, as for people in general, is "long" on ethics. :o] |
